What Do People Really Think of Alternative Relationships?

New studies open a window onto perceptions of a growing trend.

The last few years have seen a marked increase in media coverage of openly non-monogamous relationships. From swinging, to polyamory, to monogamish arrangements, more and more people are becoming aware of the alternatives to complete monogamy.

But has this awareness translated into greater acceptance? Or are openly nonmonogamous relationships, and the people who engage in them, still perceived as "worse" than their monogamous counterparts?

A series of recent studies by a research team at the University of Michigan, now published in Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, suggests that, in the minds of most people, consensual nonmonogamy (CNM) remains far inferior to monogamy.

In an initial study, psychologists Terri Conley, Amy C. Moors, and their colleagues recruited 1,101 participants (mean age 24 years, 65 percent female, 28 percent non-white, and 31 percent college students) for an online study by posting links to the survey on volunteer sections of classified advertisement sites like craigslist.org. Half the sample was randomly assigned to read a description of monogamy (“Two people agree to have a sexual and romantic relationship only with one another”) and the other half a description of consensual nonmonogamy (“People agree to have sexual and/or romantic relationships with more than one person, and the partners involved are aware that multiple relationships are occurring”). Then, participants rated the relationship they read about based on the extent to which they believed it provided various relationship benefits.

As you can see from the graph, monogamy was perceived as better than consensual nonmonogamy on 20 out of 22 measures of perceived relationship benefits—everything from sexual/physical health to closeness/trust/romance to financial benefits and moral superiority. These differences were not only statistically significant, they were large—larger than most effects ever seen in psychological studies. Just look at the "prevents STIs" difference: It is full four points on a seven-point scale. What's more, CNM was rated as far below the mid-point of the scale on most relationship benefits. The only two benefits more often credited to CNM than to monogamy were preventing boredom and allowing independence.

Funnily enough, in a phenomenon known as the “halo effect,” this negativity toward nonmonogamy extended to traits and behaviors that have nothing to do with relationships. For example, monogamous relationships were perceived to be better at encouraging paying taxes on time, daily dog walking, taking multivitamins, and daily teeth flossing.

Because they had such a big sample, the researchers could test whether these perceptions were shared by various subpopulations. The findings were virtually identical for college students and noncollege adults, for both women and men, across all ethnic groups—and for heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual participants. All agreed that monogamy was better. Perhaps more surprisingly, the findings were similar even for the 4.3 percent of the sample who reported currently being in a CNM relationship! Even nonmonogamous people themselves actually supported the institution of monogamy—something akin to internalized homophobia sometimes experienced among LGB people.

In a second sample, the team investigated whether these negative views would extend to specific monogamous or CNM romantic relationships, rather than the general category of (non)monogamy. So they again recruited people through Facebook and Craigslist—a smaller and older sample this time (132 participants with a mean age of 35)—and had them read a description of a couple (Sara and Dan) who’ve been together for five years, enjoy each other’s company, and hope to get married some day. But one half of participants also read that Sara and Dan “have been monogamous for their entire relationship, are finding themselves to be happy with this arrangement, and plan to continue to be monogamous," while the other half read that “they were monogamous for the first four years of their relationship, then, a year ago, both mutually agreed that it would be okay if they have other sexual partners. For about a year, they have been engaging in relationships with other partners. They are finding themselves happy with this arrangement and plan to continue to be nonmonogamous.” The participants then rated Dan and Sara’s relationship on a number of characteristics.

Similar to the general category of consensual nonmonogamy, this specific nonmonogamous relationship was rated as worse for sexual health, moral acceptability, relationship quality, loneliness, sexual satisfaction, and arbitrary benefits.

A fourth online sample (269 people with a mean age of 34) confirmed that this negativity extends to other relationship benefits not assessed previously, including having shared interests, good communication, being equals, or arguing rarely. As the graph below illustrates, the perception also extends to individual personality characteristics that shouldn’t be related to relational processes, from being generous and caring, to being successful and educated, to being law abiding and charitable. The only perceived redeeming characteristic of nonmonogamous people was being more charismatic.

You may already be convinced, but the researchers didn’t stop here: In a follow-up paper, they further clarified the reach of nonmonogamy stigma. Across three large online samples (ranging from 460 to 720 participants each) recruited using social media, CNM relationships and people were rated worse than monogamous ones...:

When the CNM couple had been nonmonogamous right from the beginning (as opposed to starting monogamous then opening up four years later, as in the initial study);

When people rated Dan and Sara (i.e., the male and the female target of the couple) individually. Except for sexual satisfaction, nonmonogamous men were not perceived as any better—or worse—than nonmonogamous women, but both were viewed more negatively than a monogamous man or woman, respectively.

When people evaluated lesbian or gay couples (as opposed to a heterosexual couple). As it happens, CNM gay and lesbian couples were viewed slightly more positively than CNM heterosexual couples, but both were viewed more negatively than a monogamous couple of their respective sexual orientation.

This impressive body of work undoubtedly points to the conclusion that even among relatively young, social media-connected people, stigma against consensual nonmonogamy and the people who engage in it is strong, robust, and pervasive, stretching across virtually all personality and relationship characteristics, and all demographic groups (including nonmonogamous people themselves).

If nonmonogamous lifestyles are here to stay, we have a long way to go to make these people feel welcome.

The irony is that many of the people who look down on consensual nonmonogamy are themselves practicing NONconsensual nonmonogamy, widely practiced and more commonly known as "cheating". I think it's safe to say that among married people, cheating is by far the most commonly practiced form of nonmonogamy. So you would think that people who practice that would at least look more favorably on those who are honest about it. But apparently that's not the case, or many more in these surveys would look more positively on consensual nonmonogamy. So either many people are hypocrites, or they harbor a lot of guilt about their own behavior, or both.

It's also ironic that many people actually practice nonconsensual nonmonogamy in high school and college, sleeping with new partners without the consent of current ones, and then go on to have multiple marriages, with affairs. Yet these same people would look down on people in long-term polygamous relationships, who in some cases have far fewer lifetime partners.

I always thought the phrase "serial monogamy" was humorously oxymoronic, about as silly as "single polygamy". I mean, let's face it, if you're having serial monogamy, you're having multiple partners, just not at the same time. But you still had the pain of the breakups and turmoil in between them, just the same.

If the writer of this original article would have talked with those of us who have lived the lifestyle all of our lives (now in my 60's) the truth would come out. Polyamory and all of the lifestyles that come off of it do not go into it for just the sex. We go into the lifestyle because monogamy is not for everyone. We do want and need the joys of real relationship with love, caring, honesty, communication and of course children. Blanket statements are not good and send a false message. Next time please check with the real poly folks who live the life.

As a long times swinger (with my wife) I find such findings typical, sad, and yet hilarious at the same time. We have found such an awesome place in our relationship and are closer than most couples we know (who are not swingers) that I honestly feel sorry for those who just don't "get" it, or are afraid of it at some level.

On the other hand vanilla stories about "us swingers" are usually hilariously wrong and for some reason people always want to talk about "swingers" who live one block over or some such.

Sure, every time a straight man is having sex, there is a woman having sex. Every time a man has a new partner, a woman is having a new partner. Every time a man is having an "inappropriate" relationship, there is a woman having an "inappropriate" relationship. It's simple math. There are no exceptions.

It's hilarious when people say obviously stupid things like "men have more sex than women", or "men have more partners than women".

But I will add that any woman that looks (half-way descent) will have far more opportunities than her male counterpart - any day. A guy would have to put in some "work" to find women, while a lady may not have to do anything to gain the attention of men. Women get approached more often which increases their chances of meeting other men.

Men "just looking to get laid" outnumber women doing the same greatly so it is to be expected.

I'm married and I'm in somewhat better shape than my wife. For casual sex she would have the easier time if she chose it, BUT I would have the easier time finding a good relationship with a higher quality woman than my wife would find a man.

Women as a rule look at such things differently, thank you evolution. With my looks and profession I could very easily find a woman half my age, who is a "10", even if she wasn't consciously gold digging. The same woman wouldn't give me the time of day though for casual sex. What makes me attractive as a partner is different than just being a boy toy.

Most men seem pretty bitter about this sort of thing for some reason, but they are bitter towards women which is sort of funny being its how men act that is to blame. If men were to pick partners like women do this wouldn't be an issue. Instead our first and often only goal is sex. As long as thats not the only goal for women their will be a "market" issue where more men want sex than women are giving it.

Imagine if more women were into casual sex? Suddenly those "OK" looking women would find themselves alone as their value goes down.

If you're a man who genuinely enjoys the companionship of women as friends, has a sense of humor and loves to talk with them, you might be in for a very big surprise! Some of them will ask you to bed, even ones quite a bit younger, and sometime when you least expect it!

Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. There you have it -- no secret method, system, or lectures you have to pay for.

Sure, women have more "opportunities" from men for the thing that MEN WANT FROM WOMEN. Which is kind of a male-centric viewpoint and therefore irrelevant and uninteresting to women. It's kind of like your dog envying your access to all that fresh meat in the supermarket -- like, YOU DON'T CARE and it's irrelevant to you. The dog thinks you're lucky as sin to have all that access, but you don't think of it as an advantage at all. So you view that as the dog's problem, not your advantage. Get it? Get out of your male-centric viewpoint, as if women are SUPPOSED to think the same way! LOL

So there are things that women want from men, but which men generally wouldn't want from women. But again, from a male-centric viewpoint, that's sometimes just regarded as silly and not real in some way. If that's really the way you think, it might actually be the reason you're not getting laid as much as you could! Because many women can spot that kind of man who can't think outside his own male-centric box. As I've heard some women put it, "As soon as I started talking to him, I could just sense the gears in his head clicking and trying to figure out how to get into my pants -- a real turnoff!"

Also, yes, I'll give you that from that male viewpoint, women have more opportunities. But as for actual ENCOUNTERS, the numbers square up again -- to exactly equal totals between the genders.... obviously!

"every time a man is having an "inappropriate" relationship, there is a woman having an "inappropriate" relationship."

Says who? Maybe I missed something somewhere but it seems to me that how could you possibly know for example,if a married man is sleeping with a married woman or a single woman, that isn't aware that the married man is in fact married?So she's not cheating;only he is.

My position(that women cheat more than men) is predicated by the axiom that, 'it's a woman's choice':for heterosexual sex to be possible,the woman must consent to it,therefore her consent to the activity is required before it can even occur-with the exception of rape.

In the cultural era of romantic love,where male suitors shower the female objects of their desire with valuables...this tradition...expresses the understanding that the female has absolute and total control;it's her choice and consequently because 'absolute power corrupts absolutely,'women trade or barter this 'valuable commodity,whereas the male has no such power,nor commodity nor ever will:

Darwin's theory, that in nature,males compete for an opportunity to mate, acknowledges this dynamic clearly;females absolutely control the advent of human heterosexuality/mating.

This aspect-of the factual conditions-under which the relationship is carried out...cannot be left unaccounted for,in such a discussion.

So, my claim that 'women cheat more than men,'as of now,remains unchallenged:women control the advent of sex whether it is legitimate or illegitimate,because that's the power that nature has bestowed upon them;and they use it.

In an attempt to address this naturally occurring inequality(that breeds(pun intended) dis-function within modern civilized cultures)the institute of marriage was created to limit the destabilizing effects of sexuality.

But you cannot undo one of the most intractable negative aspects of human nature,nor the societal problem of 'cheating,'until you get a handle on human sexuality and dissolve the institute of marriage.

Because uncontrolled sexuality in civilized societies leads to too much drama which destabilizes human beings and prevents the realistic attainment of individual human happiness.So the implementation of 'single-hood societies' would result in the most contented people.

But cheating is a consequence of nature,and women are the source of it:

where sexuality is concerned,women wear the crown of inequality and reign supreme.

Only partially true, and if every new partner required another one. A promiscuous women can have a LOT more sex than a promiscuous man, its the nature of our sexuality. As such its doesn't have to be a 1-1 ratio. Yes women cheat, but .. well math.

...a ring of truth is enough for me because, with the advent of the dual-mind theory, that we all contain male and female natures-or 'two minds'-the perception that women reign supreme is only that;she is half her father as well as,half her mother...and in real time.

And so are men.

But for entertainment purposes lets alter your statement to read 'a woman can have a lot more sex than a man,it's the nature of our sexuality.'

Every time a man has hetero sex, there is a woman having sex, period. Every time a man has a new partner, there is a woman having a new partner, period. Now, who's to say what goes on in their minds, that's another issue.

As for promiscuous women, yeah sure. But just like some men who have a new partner or two evey day. Neither gender has a corner on huge numbers over time.

...you initially responded to a post where I said that, 'women cheat more than men.'

And that's what I argued for;women have all the power and opportunity;it's their choice whether or not sex occurs at all.

In the modern world one of nature's more obvious inequalities is the power that only women have, to determine who has sex with them,and should that result in a pregnancy,the sole choice to decide whether or not that child will make it outside the womb alive.

Women were endowed by nature with the choice to exercise 'absolute power';and they do.But if men had the same ability,I'm certain they would too,unless they were prevented somehow.

You're looking at this from a very male-centric viewpoint, where the coin is "sex". But women also struggle to find a scarce resource in men, which they hold back on just as much, namely personal characteristics aside from sex. So, overall, men have power too in lots of ways that women don't because men aren't looking for those qualities from men.

But even from your own point-of-view of "sex" being the coin, you're missing another male point-of-view of scarcity in women, and that's good looks. Oh what some men are willing to pay to have a good looking woman on their arms.

But the funny thing is that neither sex nor good looks are that hard to obtain if you know what to offer women -- and that's where I think you're wrong. I think you're speaking from a point-of-view of a man who doesn't know how to get women. Yes, for that individual man, it can indeed seem like women have all the control.

I will concede that you have a point in many cases for typical women in typical relationships. It is often the case that the man wants more sex than the woman. But I have to say that in my own experience I dated a lot of women at the same time in my college days. And I never considered it a problem if one of them didn't want sex. Sure she had that power, but I also realized I could call up any of my other female friends and it wouldn't take long before I could have sex if I really wanted it. So I had power too, if not with a particular woman, but by playing the numbers game -- it is guaranteed that I could find a woman who wanted to have sex. So I don't really see your point about power unless you are stuck in a relationship for some reason and have no opportunity to go outside, or if you are married to someone who doesn't care about your sexual needs.

Again, I have to say I was perhaps lucky on my college days. Not only did I have a lot of girlfriends, but I also enjoyed them as friends and I got asked to bed more often than I asked them to bed. No kidding. So I don't really see your point, at least not in my personal experience. Not at all.

Though I would like to reiterate that if contentment with the self was more commonly widespread and encouraged by conditioning, a culture norm so to speak,then it wouldn't be necessary to endlessly search for some,'scarce personal characteristic.'

This position is a philosophical one, where we're all viewed more or less the same.So the idea that there exists something 'out there' in the world among the opposite sex that each of us needs to find,in order to be 'complete,' is a fairly precarious position.To believe that a need exists, as if we're somehow 'lacking' of some scarce resource in ourselves,is more or less admitting to not understanding yourself for who you are;and this is a huge problem.

Further,to enjoy the company of another is one thing but perceiving a need for some ongoing contractual arrangement,and then embarking upon a campaign so as to acquire/achieve it,isn't a very enlightened way to live,given what is known about the 'alternatives'(speaking of the devil).

But to each his own.However my position overall is, that 'alternative relationships' or any relationship at all is essentially unnecessary given that we're born with everything we'll ever need.

I see nothing wrong with swinging. Whether it be married couples or partners that agree & are happy to live "tha life". The choice to live a non-monogamous sexual life with a consenting partner is the ultimate hookup situation for most people who are truly honest & sincere about it.

People who have experienced swinging & come away with negative perceptions may have encountered swinging couples that swing for their own personal sexual enjoyment & validation, in lieu of being in "tha life" together with their partner.

The research for this kind of lifestyle is interesting but it didn't delve into the "initial" couple like I thought it would. I would like to know more about the evolving dynamics of the swinging couple...do they honestly feel closer, more intimate, or more connected now that they are open to sexual relationships outside of their "core" relationship? Do they truly enjoy a greater sense of trust, security, & honesty with their partner as they continue to share themselves with other people? How is jealously discussed or addressed? Are they more sexually active with each other since they started swinging?

The research for this kind of lifestyle is interesting but it didn't delve into the "initial" couple like I thought it would. I would like to know more about the evolving dynamics of the swinging couple...do they honestly feel closer, more intimate, or more connected now that they are open to sexual relationships outside of their "core" relationship?

Yes, we are closer and can be 100% honest with each other in ways most couples don't feel comfortable.

wrote:

Do they truly enjoy a greater sense of trust, security, & honesty with their partner as they continue to share themselves with other people?

I trust her unequivocally but I have always done so. Its part of why this works. If you don't trust your partner to start, swinging is most likely not a good choice. Trust first, swing after. This is where the people trying to fix their marriage often falter in swinging. You don't fix a marriage with swinging, you enhance a good one.

wrote:

How is jealously discussed or addressed?

I was a bit jealous the first time we "full swapped" for a couple of reasons. I got over it after about a week of brooding and it was really a great feeling. I used to be the over protective boyfriend/husband. My wife on the other hand didn't have many jealousy issues. I think being bi made that part easier for her.

wrote:

Are they more sexually active with each other since they started swinging?

I think our married sex is about the same frequency as non-swinging couples, at most about 3 times a week. This has gone down from the past, but that I see as just age and age of the relationship. When we are actively swinging we may have more over all sex then this, including with each other, but we are not a swing every week kinda couple. Every few months is our speed.

Perhaps people correctly recognize that the sort of people that organize their lives around what can realistically be no more than 30 minutes of physical pleasure a day are fundamentally weak.

If I make getting my knob polished by all and sundry the focus and meaning of my life because it feels good it suggests that I will certainly do other things that feel good. I for one used to love smoking weed, perhaps that pleasure is what I should organize my life around. When I was really young and crazy I tried heroin and I can tell you that 30 minutes of pleasure is incomparable, that's my purpose in life Maybe not drugs, roulette is said to be physically and psychologically exciting, maybe that temporary dopamine rush will define who I am, I'll use the mortgage payment for that since it feels so good. OOOh - I know, base jumping !!

Basically it's simple, banging everyone is shallow, risky and hedonistic behaviour :
It combines the health benefits of blood transfusions with random strangers, the chance for unwanted spawn or terminations, actual physical danger, psychological harm, social disapproval, a guarantee of utterly superficial relationships, diminished self worth, diminished worth to partners, trauma, disgust and confusion to kith and kin and a dozen other problems.
I personally have never had an orgasm worth hepatitis, ostracism, loss of respect, shame of children and family, the destruction of both partners self worth and an unwanted pregnancy with a pervy stranger.

It combines the health benefits of blood transfusions with random strangers, the chance for unwanted spawn or terminations, actual physical danger, psychological harm, social disapproval, a guarantee of utterly superficial relationships, diminished self worth, diminished worth to partners, trauma, disgust and confusion to kith and kin and a dozen other problems.
I personally have never had an orgasm worth hepatitis, ostracism, loss of respect, shame of children and family, the destruction of both partners self worth and an unwanted pregnancy with a pervy stranger.

Married 17 years here. Swinger as above. I don't know if they have a marriage strength scale out there but I know mine is far stronger than most couples out there. We still treat each other like newly weds in a lot of ways, have zero secrets, and really do love each other.

You just throw a bunch of crap on the wall with your post hoping something sticks. About the only true one is there is a STD risk, but its slightly better for swingers than the single population.

Some people were just not put on this earth to "get it", you appear to be one of those people. I will sleep well despite knowing out there, some opinionated but woefully uninformed person doesn't believe me.

I think couples are strengthened by each person maintaining a healthy sense of self within the relationship. Some people prefer to do that without multiple sexual or romantic relationships. Some people prefer to do that with multiple sexual or romantic relationships. So whereas it can be something as simple as how you prefer to strengthen the individual self in the relationship, I personally feel that seeking multiple partners has something to do with obtaining validation from secondary sexual relationships. I feel it's a weaker source of validation, and involves personal, social, and physical risk more so than monogamy. It also adds a layer of disposability to the secondary relationships that might not affect the primary one, but is implicit within the secondary. It might be okay with some, this secondary arrangement, but it does seem devaluing. In my experience, all polyamorous folks I've known have had way more drama in their lives through polyamory than monogamous couples I've known through monogamy. Which is not to say that it can't work for a while, or for longer, with some folks rather than others. In the end everyone chooses for themselves and at least polyamorous people explore with honesty.

People have all sorts of sexual styles, I don't think one way works for everyone. The relationships I've witnessed seemed to be motivated in a certain way, hence my opinions. Others might do it better or for better reasons. It's kind of silly to argue what's "best." Know where you stand and what works for you and be happy, because pointing the finger or defending on this issue is useless! :)I wish people could have opinions without stigma.

One aspect of "non-monogomy" or "polyamoury" that has been ignored or just isn't considered interesting is the multi partner permanent relationships. These are monogomous to the extent that they have formed a permanent familial relationship where all partners are supported in every way (marriage for lack of a better term) but sleep/have sex within the relationship with multiple partners. This type of relationship is vastly superior to a couple relationship. Multiple incomes, close ties in times of trouble, personal growth in interpersonal communication, and the sex doesn't get boring!

doesn't prove it;in fact it is more likely to fail.It merely multiplies all the traps that traditional couples fall into.

You're obviously very young(20 something right?)largely uneducated...and immature,so you can't understand all the points that you made,have all failed already...and badly.

But lets be clear about something;I'm not arguing for marriage or saying it's better:it's just that people change so much, and so many times throughout their life that on average,they can't possibly be content with anyone;it's more realistic for them to learn how to be content as an individual:they really have no other choice;but where it concerns the freedom to choose endlessly so as to 'feel happy' what's to stop everyone from conducting their life as merely an endless string of serial hookups,or rearrangements in their poly ratio's?

It's ridiculous.Very few can realistically commit to a single lifelong relationship whether it's with one person or four;but everyone is stuck with their selves.So then learning to be happy with yourself doesn't require anything beyond what you came into this world with;you.

I believe single is the best solution for most everyone;that's what nature intended.Who are we to subvert nature's plan anyway?

But for those who want to marry,I don't see a problem if two people consent to it..but more than two?

It may not be so much that a poly relationship is better. Rather, it may be that those who SELF SELECT to be in a poly relationship are people who ALREADY have more emotional insight and are better communicators.

As for single being best, again, a valid opinion, but you're an authority only on yourself, not for me. It is not best for me. I enjoy the company of a number of women and I could not imagine life without them.

As for single being what nature intended, you're on pretty thin ice for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that we have a life-long sex drive, organs designed to mate with members of the opposite sex, and the obvious emotional needs of many people to pair bond.

apparently finds appropriate for everyone:upon birth no one is born with a number of women attached to them,therefore you are in the exact relationship that nature made you to be in, for the world in which you live.

When I state that no one needs anything, I speak of what is;and that is God,and of which,we are all a part.All is one.Necessity does not exist;you already contain everything that you'll ever need.

First you have assumed I was speaking of triads. Not so. There are many different versions of the relationships I was speaking of. Triad, quad, quint, etc. Made up of as many varied men and women as the math allows for. And, it's not the rule anymore because over the centuries men were made exclusively responsible for the financial wellbeing of the females. Prior to that anthroprological shift there were many cultures that practiced group marriages or tribal relationships. Many hands make light work is true. We've been lied to over time that monogomy and single relationships are best. How can they be when they put so much pressure on the two people to cope financially and emotionally alone to raise their children, educate them and then have enough left over to retire knowing they will be living on less and less each year? It doesn't make sense. A group that puts a common goal ahead of the individual will away be more successful. But that's the rub. We have been taught to be "individuals" and put ourselves ahead of everyone else. So there isn't room for a cooperative lifestyle. Which takes me to the end of my first comment. Personal growth. Being in a cooperative, multi-partner relationship means learning to communicate, compromise, and put others ahead of yourself. How is that not better than "monogomous marriage?"

Traditionally and historically, multi-marriages were the norm. It slowly got over taken by Christian mores and then by colonial victorian mores. Also marriages, and the addition to sex slaves and/or prostitutes on the side were normal before Christianity engulfed other faiths and then British colonization was the nail in the coffin for many countries. Monogamy is a relatively recent thing, and mainly it came about because of inheritance and land. Marriage was only a business arrangement for titles, land, and money. To insure the security of inheritance women were expected in society to be virgins until marriage and then only have sex with their husband. That was the only way to insure the handing down of titles, land and monies. Love and closeness and partnership.....blah blah blah......all the nice existential and emotional things that marriage is now had never entered into it. That ideal of marriage didn't exist. You didn't need to love or even have to like the person you married. And in most cases, the people didn't. Basically, the current model of marriage and monogamy has only existed for MAYBE a hundred years--and that's only in the west. Look anywhere else in the world and marriage and sexual mores are different and very diverse. Many marriages in Africa are not monogamous and even are multiple marriages. Many marriages in the middle east and asian continent are not monogamous and are even multiple marriages. South America where many countries are deeply catholic, many men don't get divorced because of religious mores and family structure, but instead keep a wife AND a mistress. Etc etc etc. Michael, you have no idea what you are talking about......and no, when I get older I won't see how young and naive I am. I'm also not 20, but older. These are facts I'm stating. Not opinions, but historical cultural facts. I'll go once step further, even the ideal of the perfect westernized marriage is so recent. Most people think that a white wedding dress is traditional and about purity and all goodness. Can't be further from the truth. It only came into existence and became popular because of queen victoria. Women wanted to be like the rich and famous and titled queen....so they emulated her. It is NOT traditional. Even the idea of the engagement ring that ALMOST EVERYONE falls for as traditional and romantic has only been around from the 1930s....because of a marketing campaign from De Beers. They wanted to sell more diamonds and they started the diamonds are forever campaign. And it worked very very well. People these days can't, don't, or won't see marriage as anything else than it has been for the past 100 years. But marriage for thousands of years.....and sex.....were seen and treated completely different than people of today treat it.

It's funny to me how much I CAN'T talk about being Poly. To the point that I just don't mention it anymore to others. My lady and I have been on and off Poly for about 3 years now, and it's been one of THE MOST eye opening experiences. From how friends and family perceive us, to how potential dates perceive us. Naturally the populous believes that we have some "problem", something deep down that one of us wont admit. We get comments like "You have a relationship that's perfectly fine! Why would you risk it?" Most of these people I think are just unhappy with themselves.

But this study really shows me how indoctrinated monogamy is!A friend of mine who I explained what my lady and I want to achieve, a long term group relationship with another male AND female, being each others best friends, building a family, and yes enjoying sex. He told me that it was an incredibly beautiful thought...but he could never bring himself to do it.

Read that again.

He thinks it's a nice idea, could like it, but refuses because fear/morality/religion/etc.

I'm not here to convince you that the Poly lifestyle works. I could care less if you like it or don't. You're already convinced of it's ill nature, why change you? I love you all the same, and I wish you luck on your journey through this Universe. Because that same Universe doesn't care who you love, who you fuck, or how many of those people are involved. Why limit yourself?

The people who have such strong judgements on nonmonogamous relationships are the same people that keep cheating on their partners... a bunch of scared, narrowminded hypocrits they are as far as I am concerned... and that's all I have to say about this...